Terrapin Station wrote:I don't know if I get it, especially if you're writing in e-prime in this thread, Walker.

To say exactly what one wants to say without the familiar concept transcends the arbitrary limitation of language that one imposes upon reality, and thought. You remove a key peg of the language, like removing a key from a musical instrument. From the expansive view of no mistakes, transcending a loss makes a handicap an asset. Consider the physical correlation. We grow old, slow down, lose strength, become fragile. As the mind transcends loss of a key language peg, so does the mind transcend physical limitations until the body gives up the ghost. Writing becomes less of the habit one learned as a child. You will eventually lose to be, anyway. Doing it now while strong and flexible for alternatives makes the eventual loss of to be, literally and figuratively, a workable situation in stride. Then samsara does not destroy beauty. Plus, one cannot assume as much with the verb-handicap, which makes this a tool for scientific thought.

An analogy of this would be the brain re-wiring itself after losing a host of neurons. "To Be" in all of its expressions, past, present, future denotes time which may refer to something internal or external to oneself, subjective or objective. To exclude time in its sense of Being inflects every single expression as if it derived from the very instance of one's thought as though time which externalizes the process of ideation doesn't exist. I imagine time as an intensely chromatic entity suitable to any process and can't conceptualize expressions which forgo placing them in that context without imploding into or emanating from the most extreme solipsism.

Walker wrote:To say exactly what one wants to say without the familiar concept transcends the arbitrary limitation of language that one imposes upon reality, and thought.

As I mentioned in the post after the one you're responding to, part of the reason I don't think I get it is the following. I don't see what the difference is, semantically, between the sentence I just quoted and this one: "To say what one wants to say without the familiar concept is to transcend the arbitrary limitation . . ."

You remove a key peg of the language, like removing a key from a musical instrument.

"It is akin to removing a key peg of the language"

Etc.

In other words, it doesn't seem to make a substantive difference to me, just a stylistic difference. Because it doesn't seem to make a semantic difference, just a superficial grammatical or syntactical difference.

(Which isn't to say that I do not believe that some grammatical differences make semantic differences, before someone misreads me that way; it's just that the e-prime conventions don't seem to make a semantic difference.)

==============================

Even simpler than the above, by the way, is the fact that merely by stating propositions, one is stating, "It is the case that P." So every statement in e-prime would be semantically the same by prefacing it with "It is the case that"

Last edited by Terrapin Station on Sat Oct 08, 2016 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dubious wrote:An analogy of this would be the brain re-wiring itself after losing a host of neurons. "To Be" in all of its expressions, past, present, future denotes time which may refer to something internal or external to oneself, subjective or objective. To exclude time in its sense of Being inflects every single expression as if it derived from the very instance of one's thought as though time which externalizes the process of ideation doesn't exist. I imagine time as an intensely chromatic entity suitable to any process and can't conceptualize expressions which forgo placing them in that context without imploding into or emanating from the most extreme solipsism.

If only you could somehow exclude time, but you can't, because time is simply change. You'd not only need to exclude ALL verbs to exclude time, but on a more meta level, the mere fact of writing and reading one word after another includes time.

It is the case that to say exactly what one wants to say without the familiar concept transcends the arbitrary limitation of language that one imposes upon reality, and thought. It is the case that you remove a key peg of the language, like removing a key from a musical instrument. It is the case that from the expansive view of no mistakes, transcending a loss makes a handicap an asset. Consider the physical correlation [that one isn't a proposition]. It is the case that we grow old, slow down, lose strength, become fragile. It is the case that as the mind transcends loss of a key language peg, so does the mind transcend physical limitations until the body gives up the ghost. It is the case that writing becomes less of the habit one learned as a child. It is the case that you will eventually lose to be, anyway. It is the case that doing it now while strong and flexible for alternatives makes the eventual loss of to be, literally and figuratively, a workable situation in stride. It is the case that samsara then does not destroy beauty. It is also the case that one cannot assume as much with the verb-handicap, which makes this a tool for scientific thought.

Not as aesthetically attractive, but semantically, what has changed there?

Dubious wrote:An analogy of this would be the brain re-wiring itself after losing a host of neurons. "To Be" in all of its expressions, past, present, future denotes time which may refer to something internal or external to oneself, subjective or objective. To exclude time in its sense of Being inflects every single expression as if it derived from the very instance of one's thought as though time which externalizes the process of ideation doesn't exist. I imagine time as an intensely chromatic entity suitable to any process and can't conceptualize expressions which forgo placing them in that context without imploding into or emanating from the most extreme solipsism.

It is the case that to say exactly what one wants to say without the familiar concept transcends the arbitrary limitation of language that one imposes upon reality, and thought. It is the case that you remove a key peg of the language, like removing a key from a musical instrument. It is the case that from the expansive view of no mistakes, transcending a loss makes a handicap an asset. Consider the physical correlation [that one isn't a proposition]. It is the case that we grow old, slow down, lose strength, become fragile. It is the case that as the mind transcends loss of a key language peg, so does the mind transcend physical limitations until the body gives up the ghost. It is the case that writing becomes less of the habit one learned as a child. It is the case that you will eventually lose to be, anyway. It is the case that doing it now while strong and flexible for alternatives makes the eventual loss of to be, literally and figuratively, a workable situation in stride. It is the case that samsara then does not destroy beauty. It is also the case that one cannot assume as much with the verb-handicap, which makes this a tool for scientific thought.

Not as aesthetically attractive, but semantically, what has changed there?

The difference lies in the distinction between discovering thought and copying thought.

It is the case that to say exactly what one wants to say without the familiar concept transcends the arbitrary limitation of language that one imposes upon reality, and thought. It is the case that you remove a key peg of the language, like removing a key from a musical instrument. It is the case that from the expansive view of no mistakes, transcending a loss makes a handicap an asset. Consider the physical correlation [that one isn't a proposition]. It is the case that we grow old, slow down, lose strength, become fragile. It is the case that as the mind transcends loss of a key language peg, so does the mind transcend physical limitations until the body gives up the ghost. It is the case that writing becomes less of the habit one learned as a child. It is the case that you will eventually lose to be, anyway. It is the case that doing it now while strong and flexible for alternatives makes the eventual loss of to be, literally and figuratively, a workable situation in stride. It is the case that samsara then does not destroy beauty. It is also the case that one cannot assume as much with the verb-handicap, which makes this a tool for scientific thought.

Not as aesthetically attractive, but semantically, what has changed there?

The difference lies in the distinction between discovering thought and copying thought.

Presumably you think we're "copying thought" when we add "It is the case that" before the statements we're making. Why would that amount to "copying thought," whereas the statement without "It is the case that" prior to it is "discovering thought"?